If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

On the other hand: somehow the trailer didn't 'feel' like a souls-trailer to me. So far the trailers were focusing more on the world, this time I had the feeling it focuses on characters. A bit odd and if I'd be prone to wild speculation I'd say this indicates a shift in the core design philosophy. Maybe its because it launched at the VGA, the vatican-equivalent for the dorito-pope?

Yeah, it's incredibly tricky. I think there some tips going around, like, place your sign somewhere with low affluence, wait at least a minute before you try to set it down again, have one of the two (usually the host) quit and restart the game, as that -might- switch him to a different server...
Not exactly the friendliest system.

Yeah, it's incredibly tricky. I think there some tips going around, like, place your sign somewhere with low affluence, wait at least a minute before you try to set it down again, have one of the two (usually the host) quit and restart the game, as that -might- switch him to a different server...
Not exactly the friendliest system.

In order to cater to a wider audience they might end up with a mediocre experience for everyone. Playing Demon's Souls the first time was something special. Playing Modern Warfare 3 clearly wasn't.

You should tell those people who make games for free.

You don't get games like Dark Souls being made by people for free. You barely get any games made by people for free, because people have needs, like eating, housing, clothing. And before you link me to the one or two games that would prove my point otherwise, look at the total percentage those games make up compared to every other game on the planet that was made with the backing of money and to make money.

Of course not, it would be really stupid to assume this. Where did anyone claim that?

But there are plenty of games, music, pictures, wikipedia entries or operating systems that are made by people for free and in their spare time. Because some people have a job that pays for their needs and still have time to do things they consider fun. For some making a game is just fun. Will you drive to their house and force them to charge people to play?

Only assholes want to make something that will only be appealing to a small number of people. My opinion is that Dark Souls was difficult to the point of tedium, and I walked away without progressing too far (though I still put a decent number of hours into it). Reading up on the game, the creator seemed a little disappointed that a lot of people--and he'd probably lump me into that category--didn't "get" the game, leaving it to be a sort of wiki-focused cult classic rather than a widely appreciated title.

If I understand it correctly, they want to be a little less opaque and perhaps a little less off-putting about how the mechanics work so that more people will be able to push through the early parts of the game and appreciate the title as a whole rather than just walk away. I wouldn't call that selling out, although I honestly can't see how they could do that without making the game a hell of a lot easier, and since that seems to be the entire crux of the series I doubt that they will do so. So maybe expect a more developed plot or something, as if that is really what turns people off of this game.

Are you saying all realism-inclined simulator devs, strategy devs, etc. are assholes?

I mean that no one consciously says, "I hope that only about 1% of the gaming population will like this game." Relatively few people play strategy games because relatively few people like strategy games, not because the developers intentionally tried to exclude most players. (For the record, I love strategy games, and I know that there are more factors to their popularity than "not many people like them.")